Greta Thunberg

All things Rugby

Greta Thunberg

A prophet for our time
109
49%
Sickening manipulation of a vulnerable child
93
42%
Cast off the Shoe. Follow the Gourd
21
9%
 
Total votes: 223

User avatar
dantedelew
Posts: 1590
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by dantedelew »

Good news, UK government to lift its block on onshore wind. https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -subsidies
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 12674
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by Mog The Almighty »

ChipSpike wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:The problem is, it's not hyperbole. You're just nit-picking on my choice of words.

I'll put it another way to clear any confusion: they're telling us in absolutely no uncertain terms that urgent, strong action is required and that we've already left it later than we should have.

Assuming that the expert community are all exaggerating because you're scared of losing a few bob is beyond stupid. Especially considering that you (and we all) will end up losing more $ through in-action.
Have you read the IPCC summary for policy makers SR15? Because that leaves policy makers with plenty of scope to select appropriate responses, and it's no wonder there is no consensus.
There may not be a consensus among politicians, no. But I'm not talking about that.

For whatever it's worth, the IPCC assessments have been historically erring way to far on the side of caution.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... te-change/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... emissions/
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 28671
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Chickenrunning...

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by Sandstorm »

dantedelew wrote:Good news, UK government to lift its block on onshore wind. https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -subsidies
Ah shit, we closed that wind turbine factory on the Isle of Wight just a few years ago. Never mind, we’ll import some from Germany instead.
backrow
Posts: 22783
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by backrow »

Mog The Almighty wrote:
backrow wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
backrow wrote:slight change of topic, but instead of all th Greta finger waving and desire to turn the world back to the stone age, how much would climate change be halted / reversed if some effort was made to irrigate, solar panel & grow trees in the Sahara which at present is basically doing bugger all.

Solar distillation plants on the barren Western Sahara / Morrocan / Mauritania coast, solar & wind to power the pumps, pump the water inland, and grow some trees & Aloe bushes or whatever to generate some Oxygen and cleanse the air of particles of shit.
I would presume it might be difficult due to the lack of nutrients in desert to grow plants. But I wonder if this could be done with some sort of accelerated artificial succession scheme to develop the nutrients in the soil.

EDIT: A website with this question on:

https://phys.org/news/2013-07-trees-mit ... imate.html
:thumbup:

Mog, take note on how to respond to serious questions on a forum
Erm ... I'm not doing Google searches for you brother.

Instead of posting here, you could have used Google (or whatever other search engine - I recommend Ecosia.com) and found it yourself you lazy f-ck.

(I admit, I'm assuming that this is what occurred. I assume EF didn't write that article or have the URL memorized in case someone asked him about it.)
I thought you and your twin fountain of knowledge Bimbo would know the answer already :nod:
User avatar
dantedelew
Posts: 1590
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by dantedelew »

Sandstorm wrote:
dantedelew wrote:Good news, UK government to lift its block on onshore wind. https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -subsidies
Ah shit, we closed that wind turbine factory on the Isle of Wight just a few years ago. Never mind, we’ll import some from Germany instead.
I'm sure there was a sound long term assessment before the initial block was imposed. I can't believe politicians would have made a decision based on the desire to get a quick win with a section of the electorate.
The detailed long term assessment has clearly changed over the last 4 years.
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 12674
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by Mog The Almighty »

backrow wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:
backrow wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
backrow wrote:slight change of topic, but instead of all th Greta finger waving and desire to turn the world back to the stone age, how much would climate change be halted / reversed if some effort was made to irrigate, solar panel & grow trees in the Sahara which at present is basically doing bugger all.

Solar distillation plants on the barren Western Sahara / Morrocan / Mauritania coast, solar & wind to power the pumps, pump the water inland, and grow some trees & Aloe bushes or whatever to generate some Oxygen and cleanse the air of particles of shit.
I would presume it might be difficult due to the lack of nutrients in desert to grow plants. But I wonder if this could be done with some sort of accelerated artificial succession scheme to develop the nutrients in the soil.

EDIT: A website with this question on:

https://phys.org/news/2013-07-trees-mit ... imate.html
:thumbup:

Mog, take note on how to respond to serious questions on a forum
Erm ... I'm not doing Google searches for you brother.

Instead of posting here, you could have used Google (or whatever other search engine - I recommend Ecosia.com) and found it yourself you lazy f-ck.

(I admit, I'm assuming that this is what occurred. I assume EF didn't write that article or have the URL memorized in case someone asked him about it.)
I thought you and your twin fountain of knowledge Bimbo would know the answer already :nod:
You're just being a troll now. :x
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 28671
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Chickenrunning...

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by Sandstorm »

dantedelew wrote:
Sandstorm wrote:
dantedelew wrote:Good news, UK government to lift its block on onshore wind. https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... -subsidies
Ah shit, we closed that wind turbine factory on the Isle of Wight just a few years ago. Never mind, we’ll import some from Germany instead.
I'm sure there was a sound long term assessment before the initial block was imposed. I can't believe politicians would have made a decision based on the desire to get a quick win with a section of the electorate.
The detailed long term assessment has clearly changed over the last 4 years.
Indeed :lol:
ChipSpike
Posts: 2028
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:10 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by ChipSpike »

Mog The Almighty wrote:
ChipSpike wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:The problem is, it's not hyperbole. You're just nit-picking on my choice of words.

I'll put it another way to clear any confusion: they're telling us in absolutely no uncertain terms that urgent, strong action is required and that we've already left it later than we should have.

Assuming that the expert community are all exaggerating because you're scared of losing a few bob is beyond stupid. Especially considering that you (and we all) will end up losing more $ through in-action.
Have you read the IPCC summary for policy makers SR15? Because that leaves policy makers with plenty of scope to select appropriate responses, and it's no wonder there is no consensus.
There may not be a consensus among politicians, no. But I'm not talking about that.

For whatever it's worth, the IPCC assessments have been historically erring way to far on the side of caution.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... te-change/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... emissions/
Politicians should act on IPCC info, not on blogs or articles in the press.
bimboman
Posts: 68802
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by bimboman »

Mog The Almighty wrote:
backrow wrote:@ Mog - Polar opposite ? you know literally nothing ?
Next to nothing when it comes to scientific and economic details of atmospheric physics. Unless you're highly qualified and experienced in that field, that applies to us all. We're all in a position of basically asking, "who do we believe?". It seems to me the choice is between virtually the entire global scientific community whose predictions seems to be proving to be correct at an alarming rate, and a few plucky billionaire oil and coal tycoons and the politicians they are aligned with. Seems like a non-brainer to me.

I reckon the economic details of atmosphere physics is a new one on physicists.

For whatever it's worth, the IPCC assessments have been historically erring way to far on the side of caution.
“I believe the scientists “. Except when they don’t agree with my own hysteria. Welcome to the club.
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 12674
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by Mog The Almighty »

ChipSpike wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:
ChipSpike wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:The problem is, it's not hyperbole. You're just nit-picking on my choice of words.

I'll put it another way to clear any confusion: they're telling us in absolutely no uncertain terms that urgent, strong action is required and that we've already left it later than we should have.

Assuming that the expert community are all exaggerating because you're scared of losing a few bob is beyond stupid. Especially considering that you (and we all) will end up losing more $ through in-action.
Have you read the IPCC summary for policy makers SR15? Because that leaves policy makers with plenty of scope to select appropriate responses, and it's no wonder there is no consensus.
There may not be a consensus among politicians, no. But I'm not talking about that.

For whatever it's worth, the IPCC assessments have been historically erring way to far on the side of caution.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... te-change/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... emissions/
Politicians should act on IPCC info, not on blogs or articles in the press.
:roll:

Well, that would be a beginning anyway. But they're not even close to that. Not only have we failed to reduce carbon emissions, but our emissions are actually accelerating. That is a f-cking shit situation, there's not much good reason for hope. In this light, I understand it can be frustrating hearing people saying, "the alarmists are exaggerating (or lying)". It's a complete shit show, so if you think there is some hyperbole from some corners, then it's probably out of desperation, because it seems very few have been listening to the experts so far, and even fewer have done anything about it.

Sorry to be negative, but this is the reality we face. Personally, my hunch is that we're all going to discover what worst-case global warming is like for the planet's biosphere and the global economy, whether we believe in the science or not. I can't see humanity coming together and solving this problem, not until trillions of dollars is lost and the world's ecosystem is much poorer place than what it was. Money talks, while there's still oil to drill and coal to burn and profits to be made, there's no way the few who stand to make those profits will allow it to stay in the ground. And our political system and corruptible politicians are hopelessly inept and ill-equipped in the face of this challenge.
Last edited by Mog The Almighty on Mon Mar 02, 2020 2:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 28671
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Chickenrunning...

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by Sandstorm »

Mog The Almighty wrote: :roll:

Well, that would be a beginning anyway. But they're not even close to that. Not only have we failed to reduce carbon emissions, but our emissions are actually accelerating. That is a f-cking shit situation, there's not much good reason for hope. In this light, I understand it can be frustrating hearing people saying, "the alarmists are exaggerating (or lying)". It's a complete shit show, so if you think there is some hyperbole from some corners, then it's probably out of desperation, because it seems very few have been listening to the experts so far, and even fewer have done anything about it.

Sorry to be negative, but this is the reality we face. Personally, my hunch is that we're all going to discover what worst-case global warming is like for the planet's biosphere and the global economy, whether we believe in the science or not. I can't see humanity coming together and solving this problem, not until trillions of dollars is lost and the world's ecosystem is much poorer place than what it was. Money talks, while there's still oil to drill and coal to burn and profits to be made, there's no way the few who stand to make those profits will allow it to stay in the ground. And our political system and corruptible politicians are a hopelessly inept in the face of the challenge.
Mate, you are the very definition of hyperbole.
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 12674
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by Mog The Almighty »

Sandstorm wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote: :roll:

Well, that would be a beginning anyway. But they're not even close to that. Not only have we failed to reduce carbon emissions, but our emissions are actually accelerating. That is a f-cking shit situation, there's not much good reason for hope. In this light, I understand it can be frustrating hearing people saying, "the alarmists are exaggerating (or lying)". It's a complete shit show, so if you think there is some hyperbole from some corners, then it's probably out of desperation, because it seems very few have been listening to the experts so far, and even fewer have done anything about it.

Sorry to be negative, but this is the reality we face. Personally, my hunch is that we're all going to discover what worst-case global warming is like for the planet's biosphere and the global economy, whether we believe in the science or not. I can't see humanity coming together and solving this problem, not until trillions of dollars is lost and the world's ecosystem is much poorer place than what it was. Money talks, while there's still oil to drill and coal to burn and profits to be made, there's no way the few who stand to make those profits will allow it to stay in the ground. And our political system and corruptible politicians are a hopelessly inept in the face of the challenge.
Mate, you are the very definition of hyperbole.
Whatever helps you sleep at night mate.

Which part do you think is hyperbole? Not that it really matters I guess.
bimboman
Posts: 68802
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by bimboman »

Mog The Almighty wrote:
ChipSpike wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:
ChipSpike wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:The problem is, it's not hyperbole. You're just nit-picking on my choice of words.

I'll put it another way to clear any confusion: they're telling us in absolutely no uncertain terms that urgent, strong action is required and that we've already left it later than we should have.

Assuming that the expert community are all exaggerating because you're scared of losing a few bob is beyond stupid. Especially considering that you (and we all) will end up losing more $ through in-action.
Have you read the IPCC summary for policy makers SR15? Because that leaves policy makers with plenty of scope to select appropriate responses, and it's no wonder there is no consensus.
There may not be a consensus among politicians, no. But I'm not talking about that.

For whatever it's worth, the IPCC assessments have been historically erring way to far on the side of caution.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... te-change/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... emissions/
Politicians should act on IPCC info, not on blogs or articles in the press.
:roll:

Well, that would be a beginning anyway. But they're not even close to that. Not only have we failed to reduce carbon emissions, but our emissions are actually accelerating. That is a f-cking shit situation, there's not much good reason for hope. In this light, I understand it can be frustrating hearing people saying, "the alarmists are exaggerating (or lying)". It's a complete shit show, so if you think there is some hyperbole from some corners, then it's probably out of desperation, because it seems very few have been listening to the experts so far, and even fewer have done anything about it.

Sorry to be negative, but this is the reality we face. Personally, my hunch is that we're all going to discover what worst-case global warming is like for the planet's biosphere and the global economy, whether we believe in the science or not. I can't see humanity coming together and solving this problem, not until trillions of dollars is lost and the world's ecosystem is much poorer place than what it was. Money talks, while there's still oil to drill and coal to burn and profits to be made, there's no way the few who stand to make those profits will allow it to stay in the ground. And our political system and corruptible politicians are hopelessly inept and ill-equipped in the face of this challenge.

The UK’ emissions aren’t accelerating, neither are the US’s for that matter. Find a policy to change China rather than winge at the west.
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 12674
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by Mog The Almighty »

That is completely irrelevant.

And for what it's worth, the UK and the USA both put out far more carbon per capita than China. So of course we want China to slow down, level off or - by some miracle - even reduce their carbon emissions. that's a no brainier. Stop presenting it as some kind of either-or decision, that's simply disingenuous. It would also be fantastic if the UK and USA could lower theirs, to at-least be equal with China, per capita, and preferably a lot lower.

But like I said it's an totally irrelevant point. Just another vapid bimbot argument in favour of you personally doing nothing.
bimboman
Posts: 68802
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by bimboman »

Mog The Almighty wrote:That is completely irrelevant.

And for what it's worth, the UK and the USA both put out far more carbon per capita than China. So of course we want China to slow down, level off or - by some miracle - even reduce their carbon emissions. that's a no brainier. Stop presenting it as some kind of either-or decision, that's simply disingenuous. It would also be fantastic if the UK and USA could lower theres, to at-least be equal with China, per capita, and preferably a lot lower.

But like I said it's an totally irrelevant point. Just another vapid bimbot argument in favour of you personally doing nothing.
The UK produces substantially less CO2 per capita than China. Basic facts here again MOG.

The UK and the US are reducing emissions, China isn’t.

The UK already has plans to be neutral carbon by 2050 which I’m already paying for. Stop protesting here and go to China would be my advice.
User avatar
dantedelew
Posts: 1590
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by dantedelew »

bimboman wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:That is completely irrelevant.

And for what it's worth, the UK and the USA both put out far more carbon per capita than China. So of course we want China to slow down, level off or - by some miracle - even reduce their carbon emissions. that's a no brainier. Stop presenting it as some kind of either-or decision, that's simply disingenuous. It would also be fantastic if the UK and USA could lower theres, to at-least be equal with China, per capita, and preferably a lot lower.

But like I said it's an totally irrelevant point. Just another vapid bimbot argument in favour of you personally doing nothing.
The UK produces substantially less CO2 per capita than China. Basic facts here again MOG.

The UK and the US are reducing emissions, China isn’t.

The UK already has plans to be neutral carbon by 2050 which I’m already paying for. Stop protesting here and go to China would be my advice.
We're not on track though. And some will want net zero before 2050. It is entirely valid to protest in the UK.
bimboman
Posts: 68802
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by bimboman »

dantedelew wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:That is completely irrelevant.

And for what it's worth, the UK and the USA both put out far more carbon per capita than China. So of course we want China to slow down, level off or - by some miracle - even reduce their carbon emissions. that's a no brainier. Stop presenting it as some kind of either-or decision, that's simply disingenuous. It would also be fantastic if the UK and USA could lower theres, to at-least be equal with China, per capita, and preferably a lot lower.

But like I said it's an totally irrelevant point. Just another vapid bimbot argument in favour of you personally doing nothing.
The UK produces substantially less CO2 per capita than China. Basic facts here again MOG.

The UK and the US are reducing emissions, China isn’t.

The UK already has plans to be neutral carbon by 2050 which I’m already paying for. Stop protesting here and go to China would be my advice.
We're not on track though. And some will want net zero before 2050. It is entirely valid to protest in the UK.

Compared to almost anywhere else in the world it’s nonsense. No where else has even pledged to try.

Go and change that first. Maybe she should go to Dublin with Ireland producing much higher CO2 than the UK per head.

I’m already paying for the UK pledge.
User avatar
dantedelew
Posts: 1590
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by dantedelew »

bimboman wrote:
dantedelew wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:That is completely irrelevant.

And for what it's worth, the UK and the USA both put out far more carbon per capita than China. So of course we want China to slow down, level off or - by some miracle - even reduce their carbon emissions. that's a no brainier. Stop presenting it as some kind of either-or decision, that's simply disingenuous. It would also be fantastic if the UK and USA could lower theres, to at-least be equal with China, per capita, and preferably a lot lower.

But like I said it's an totally irrelevant point. Just another vapid bimbot argument in favour of you personally doing nothing.
The UK produces substantially less CO2 per capita than China. Basic facts here again MOG.

The UK and the US are reducing emissions, China isn’t.

The UK already has plans to be neutral carbon by 2050 which I’m already paying for. Stop protesting here and go to China would be my advice.
We're not on track though. And some will want net zero before 2050. It is entirely valid to protest in the UK.

Compared to almost anywhere else in the world it’s nonsense. No where else has even pledged to try.

Go and change that first. Maybe she should go to Dublin with Ireland producing much higher CO2 than the UK per head.

I’m already paying for the UK pledge.
Can people not protest things in the UK if there is another country performing worse at those things? Does this apply to everything?
ChipSpike
Posts: 2028
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:10 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by ChipSpike »

dantedelew wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:That is completely irrelevant.

And for what it's worth, the UK and the USA both put out far more carbon per capita than China. So of course we want China to slow down, level off or - by some miracle - even reduce their carbon emissions. that's a no brainier. Stop presenting it as some kind of either-or decision, that's simply disingenuous. It would also be fantastic if the UK and USA could lower theres, to at-least be equal with China, per capita, and preferably a lot lower.

But like I said it's an totally irrelevant point. Just another vapid bimbot argument in favour of you personally doing nothing.
The UK produces substantially less CO2 per capita than China. Basic facts here again MOG.

The UK and the US are reducing emissions, China isn’t.

The UK already has plans to be neutral carbon by 2050 which I’m already paying for. Stop protesting here and go to China would be my advice.
We're not on track though. And some will want net zero before 2050. It is entirely valid to protest in the UK.
We're following IPCC recommendations to limit warming to 1.5c, what's the point of preaching to the converted? Its kind of insulting to us, and a waste of protest time.
User avatar
dantedelew
Posts: 1590
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by dantedelew »

ChipSpike wrote:
dantedelew wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:That is completely irrelevant.

And for what it's worth, the UK and the USA both put out far more carbon per capita than China. So of course we want China to slow down, level off or - by some miracle - even reduce their carbon emissions. that's a no brainier. Stop presenting it as some kind of either-or decision, that's simply disingenuous. It would also be fantastic if the UK and USA could lower theres, to at-least be equal with China, per capita, and preferably a lot lower.

But like I said it's an totally irrelevant point. Just another vapid bimbot argument in favour of you personally doing nothing.
The UK produces substantially less CO2 per capita than China. Basic facts here again MOG.

The UK and the US are reducing emissions, China isn’t.

The UK already has plans to be neutral carbon by 2050 which I’m already paying for. Stop protesting here and go to China would be my advice.
We're not on track though. And some will want net zero before 2050. It is entirely valid to protest in the UK.
We're following IPCC recommendations to limit warming to 1.5c, what's the point of preaching to the converted? Its kind of insulting to us, and a waste of protest time.
Does your point follow my point?
We're currently off track to meet our 2050 net-zero goal. So you can set a goal but you also need to hit the goal. It's OK to keep applying pressure.
I think you'd have to be exceptionally thin skinned to be insulted.
bimboman
Posts: 68802
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by bimboman »

Does your point follow my point?
We're currently off track to meet our 2050 net-zero goal. So you can set a goal but you also need to hit the goal. It's OK to keep applying pressure.
I think you'd have to be exceptionally thin skinned to be insulted.


“Off track” ? We’ve set the goal in law, promising trillions of pounds. People are travelling internationally to organise protests here when they’d be better off achieving the goal of reducing global emissions elsewhere.
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 12674
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by Mog The Almighty »

ChipSpike wrote:
dantedelew wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:That is completely irrelevant.

And for what it's worth, the UK and the USA both put out far more carbon per capita than China. So of course we want China to slow down, level off or - by some miracle - even reduce their carbon emissions. that's a no brainier. Stop presenting it as some kind of either-or decision, that's simply disingenuous. It would also be fantastic if the UK and USA could lower theres, to at-least be equal with China, per capita, and preferably a lot lower.

But like I said it's an totally irrelevant point. Just another vapid bimbot argument in favour of you personally doing nothing.
The UK produces substantially less CO2 per capita than China. Basic facts here again MOG.

The UK and the US are reducing emissions, China isn’t.

The UK already has plans to be neutral carbon by 2050 which I’m already paying for. Stop protesting here and go to China would be my advice.
We're not on track though. And some will want net zero before 2050. It is entirely valid to protest in the UK.
We're following IPCC recommendations to limit warming to 1.5c, what's the point of preaching to the converted? Its kind of insulting to us, and a waste of protest time.
No you're not.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... ys-report/

And I'm not "preaching" to anyone. I'm just stating the facts and re-iterating what the experts say in the face of vocal minority who want to either downplay the reality or pretend it's not happening.

You're insulted? Don't be such a snowflake. It's a shit situation and we're all in it together. My country, Australia, is worse than most. I don't get all offended when someone points it out to me. ffs. :roll: Better to look reality in the eye than comforting self-delusion.
bimboman
Posts: 68802
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by bimboman »

No you're not.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... ys-report/

And I'm not "preaching" to anyone. I'm just stating the facts and re-iterating what the experts say in the face of vocal minority who want to either downplay it or pretend it's not happening.
Article from Jun 2018 and we have changed the law since.


You’re consistently wrong in this aren’t you.
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 12674
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by Mog The Almighty »

bimboman wrote:
No you're not.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... ys-report/

And I'm not "preaching" to anyone. I'm just stating the facts and re-iterating what the experts say in the face of vocal minority who want to either downplay it or pretend it's not happening.
Article from Jun 2018 and we have changed the law since.


You’re consistently wrong in this aren’t you.
:roll: Hilarious.

The UK has set some admirable targets and it's worth noting that you have a long history of shitting on those targets, so it's pretty f-cking rich to crow about them now.

In any case, it's too early to tell whether you will accomplish them or not. Almost certainly not if too many dummies such as yourself get a say.
ChipSpike
Posts: 2028
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 11:10 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by ChipSpike »

Mog The Almighty wrote:
ChipSpike wrote:
dantedelew wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:That is completely irrelevant.

And for what it's worth, the UK and the USA both put out far more carbon per capita than China. So of course we want China to slow down, level off or - by some miracle - even reduce their carbon emissions. that's a no brainier. Stop presenting it as some kind of either-or decision, that's simply disingenuous. It would also be fantastic if the UK and USA could lower theres, to at-least be equal with China, per capita, and preferably a lot lower.

But like I said it's an totally irrelevant point. Just another vapid bimbot argument in favour of you personally doing nothing.
The UK produces substantially less CO2 per capita than China. Basic facts here again MOG.

The UK and the US are reducing emissions, China isn’t.

The UK already has plans to be neutral carbon by 2050 which I’m already paying for. Stop protesting here and go to China would be my advice.
We're not on track though. And some will want net zero before 2050. It is entirely valid to protest in the UK.
We're following IPCC recommendations to limit warming to 1.5c, what's the point of preaching to the converted? Its kind of insulting to us, and a waste of protest time.
No you're not.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... ys-report/

And I'm not "preaching" to anyone. I'm just stating the facts and re-iterating what the experts say in the face of vocal minority who want to either downplay the reality or pretend it's not happening.

You're insulted? Don't be such a snowflake. It's a shit situation and we're all in it together. My country, Australia, is worse than most. I don't get all offended when someone points it out to me. ffs. :roll: Better to look reality in the eye than comforting self-delusion.
When I say 'following IPCC recommendations" I mean the UK is committed to achieving them. We have to take action to achieve them, but given we've met the 1st three carbon budgets, we've got a track record at meeting them. Greta should protest in Australia then. Personally I'm not insulted, but if a country is doing the right thing, at least acknowledge it, its kind of rude otherwise.
User avatar
dantedelew
Posts: 1590
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by dantedelew »

bimboman wrote:
Does your point follow my point?
We're currently off track to meet our 2050 net-zero goal. So you can set a goal but you also need to hit the goal. It's OK to keep applying pressure.
I think you'd have to be exceptionally thin skinned to be insulted.


“Off track” ? We’ve set the goal in law, promising trillions of pounds. People are travelling internationally to organise protests here when they’d be better off achieving the goal of reducing global emissions elsewhere.
Yes. Goals and promises. But current policies won't get us there.
It's OK to keep pressure on in the UK. Getting on track to hit our goals will contribute to reducing global emissions.
Of course, other policies in other countries will also contribute. There needs to be lots of these contributions. Some will be bigger than others, but its honestly OK to have a protest in the UK about it.
bimboman
Posts: 68802
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by bimboman »

Mog The Almighty wrote:
bimboman wrote:
No you're not.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... ys-report/

And I'm not "preaching" to anyone. I'm just stating the facts and re-iterating what the experts say in the face of vocal minority who want to either downplay it or pretend it's not happening.
Article from Jun 2018 and we have changed the law since.


You’re consistently wrong in this aren’t you.
:roll: Hilarious.

The UK has set some admirable targets and it's worth noting that you have a long history of shitting on those targets, so it's pretty f-cking rich to crow about them now.

In any case, it's too early to tell whether you will accomplish them or not. Almost certainly not if too many dummies such as yourself get a say.

You claim that the UK has larger per capita CO2 than China was your glorious start to being wrong today.

They’re one of few nations to set a 2050 target post Paris (you posted an article about pre Paris ) . Wrong again.

Even if the UK is successful China is adding more than well cut every year presently, the idea its important globally is quite silly.
User avatar
dantedelew
Posts: 1590
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by dantedelew »

ChipSpike wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:
ChipSpike wrote:
dantedelew wrote:
bimboman wrote:
The UK produces substantially less CO2 per capita than China. Basic facts here again MOG.

The UK and the US are reducing emissions, China isn’t.

The UK already has plans to be neutral carbon by 2050 which I’m already paying for. Stop protesting here and go to China would be my advice.
We're not on track though. And some will want net zero before 2050. It is entirely valid to protest in the UK.
We're following IPCC recommendations to limit warming to 1.5c, what's the point of preaching to the converted? Its kind of insulting to us, and a waste of protest time.
No you're not.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/21 ... ys-report/

And I'm not "preaching" to anyone. I'm just stating the facts and re-iterating what the experts say in the face of vocal minority who want to either downplay the reality or pretend it's not happening.

You're insulted? Don't be such a snowflake. It's a shit situation and we're all in it together. My country, Australia, is worse than most. I don't get all offended when someone points it out to me. ffs. :roll: Better to look reality in the eye than comforting self-delusion.
When I say 'following IPCC recommendations" I mean the UK is committed to achieving them. We have to take action to achieve them, but given we've met the 1st three carbon budgets, we've got a track record at meeting them. Greta should protest in Australia then. Personally I'm not insulted, but if a country is doing the right thing, at least acknowledge it, its kind of rude otherwise.
You're not insulted but you DO think its rude. OK
bimboman
Posts: 68802
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by bimboman »

dantedelew wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Does your point follow my point?
We're currently off track to meet our 2050 net-zero goal. So you can set a goal but you also need to hit the goal. It's OK to keep applying pressure.
I think you'd have to be exceptionally thin skinned to be insulted.


“Off track” ? We’ve set the goal in law, promising trillions of pounds. People are travelling internationally to organise protests here when they’d be better off achieving the goal of reducing global emissions elsewhere.
Yes. Goals and promises. But current policies won't get us there.
It's OK to keep pressure on in the UK. Getting on track to hit our goals will contribute to reducing global emissions.
Of course, other policies in other countries will also contribute. There needs to be lots of these contributions. Some will be bigger than others, but its honestly OK to have a protest in the UK about it.

The UK has reduced per head carbon output 40% in 20 years. We’ve taken greater action than almost any other country in the world.

Go somewhere that’s added a similar amount in that time, say China for example.
User avatar
dantedelew
Posts: 1590
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by dantedelew »

bimboman wrote:
dantedelew wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Does your point follow my point?
We're currently off track to meet our 2050 net-zero goal. So you can set a goal but you also need to hit the goal. It's OK to keep applying pressure.
I think you'd have to be exceptionally thin skinned to be insulted.


“Off track” ? We’ve set the goal in law, promising trillions of pounds. People are travelling internationally to organise protests here when they’d be better off achieving the goal of reducing global emissions elsewhere.
Yes. Goals and promises. But current policies won't get us there.
It's OK to keep pressure on in the UK. Getting on track to hit our goals will contribute to reducing global emissions.
Of course, other policies in other countries will also contribute. There needs to be lots of these contributions. Some will be bigger than others, but its honestly OK to have a protest in the UK about it.

The UK has reduced per head carbon output 40% in 20 years. We’ve taken greater action than almost any other country in the world.

Go somewhere that’s added a similar amount in that time, say China for example.
The UK can rest on its laurels? HMG is above criticism or encouragement?
bimboman
Posts: 68802
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by bimboman »

dantedelew wrote:
bimboman wrote:
dantedelew wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Does your point follow my point?
We're currently off track to meet our 2050 net-zero goal. So you can set a goal but you also need to hit the goal. It's OK to keep applying pressure.
I think you'd have to be exceptionally thin skinned to be insulted.


“Off track” ? We’ve set the goal in law, promising trillions of pounds. People are travelling internationally to organise protests here when they’d be better off achieving the goal of reducing global emissions elsewhere.
Yes. Goals and promises. But current policies won't get us there.
It's OK to keep pressure on in the UK. Getting on track to hit our goals will contribute to reducing global emissions.
Of course, other policies in other countries will also contribute. There needs to be lots of these contributions. Some will be bigger than others, but its honestly OK to have a protest in the UK about it.

The UK has reduced per head carbon output 40% in 20 years. We’ve taken greater action than almost any other country in the world.

Go somewhere that’s added a similar amount in that time, say China for example.
The UK can rest on its laurels? HMG is above criticism or encouragement?

Yeah, it’s rested on laurels by passing even more legislation and making even more money available to the Paris and scientists target.
User avatar
dantedelew
Posts: 1590
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by dantedelew »

bimboman wrote:Yeah, it’s rested on laurels by passing even more legislation and making even more money available to the Paris and scientists target.
Good. But it needs to work a little harder to get on track to ensure it hits its own goals.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 31512
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by eldanielfire »

Mog The Almighty wrote:
backrow wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
backrow wrote:slight change of topic, but instead of all th Greta finger waving and desire to turn the world back to the stone age, how much would climate change be halted / reversed if some effort was made to irrigate, solar panel & grow trees in the Sahara which at present is basically doing bugger all.

Solar distillation plants on the barren Western Sahara / Morrocan / Mauritania coast, solar & wind to power the pumps, pump the water inland, and grow some trees & Aloe bushes or whatever to generate some Oxygen and cleanse the air of particles of shit.
I would presume it might be difficult due to the lack of nutrients in desert to grow plants. But I wonder if this could be done with some sort of accelerated artificial succession scheme to develop the nutrients in the soil.

EDIT: A website with this question on:

https://phys.org/news/2013-07-trees-mit ... imate.html
:thumbup:

Mog, take note on how to respond to serious questions on a forum
Erm ... I'm not doing Google searches for you brother.

Instead of posting here, you could have used Google (or whatever other search engine - I recommend Ecosia.com) and found it yourself you lazy f-ck.

(I admit, I'm assuming that this is what occurred. I assume EF didn't write that article or have the URL memorized in case someone asked him about it.)
Lots of us ask questions on the forum because the information we get will be more accurate, helpful and to the point than many websites. Sometimes the questions can trigger an interesting discussion or get those who would know better where to look to serach and share a good source themselves.
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 12674
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by Mog The Almighty »

eldanielfire wrote:
Mog The Almighty wrote:
backrow wrote:
eldanielfire wrote:
backrow wrote:slight change of topic, but instead of all th Greta finger waving and desire to turn the world back to the stone age, how much would climate change be halted / reversed if some effort was made to irrigate, solar panel & grow trees in the Sahara which at present is basically doing bugger all.

Solar distillation plants on the barren Western Sahara / Morrocan / Mauritania coast, solar & wind to power the pumps, pump the water inland, and grow some trees & Aloe bushes or whatever to generate some Oxygen and cleanse the air of particles of shit.
I would presume it might be difficult due to the lack of nutrients in desert to grow plants. But I wonder if this could be done with some sort of accelerated artificial succession scheme to develop the nutrients in the soil.

EDIT: A website with this question on:

https://phys.org/news/2013-07-trees-mit ... imate.html
:thumbup:

Mog, take note on how to respond to serious questions on a forum
Erm ... I'm not doing Google searches for you brother.

Instead of posting here, you could have used Google (or whatever other search engine - I recommend Ecosia.com) and found it yourself you lazy f-ck.

(I admit, I'm assuming that this is what occurred. I assume EF didn't write that article or have the URL memorized in case someone asked him about it.)
Lots of us ask questions on the forum because the information we get will be more accurate, helpful and to the point than many websites. Sometimes the questions can trigger an interesting discussion or get those who would know better where to look to serach and share a good source themselves.
Fair enough. :thumbup:
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 12674
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by Mog The Almighty »

bimboman wrote:
dantedelew wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Does your point follow my point?
We're currently off track to meet our 2050 net-zero goal. So you can set a goal but you also need to hit the goal. It's OK to keep applying pressure.
I think you'd have to be exceptionally thin skinned to be insulted.


“Off track” ? We’ve set the goal in law, promising trillions of pounds. People are travelling internationally to organise protests here when they’d be better off achieving the goal of reducing global emissions elsewhere.
Yes. Goals and promises. But current policies won't get us there.
It's OK to keep pressure on in the UK. Getting on track to hit our goals will contribute to reducing global emissions.
Of course, other policies in other countries will also contribute. There needs to be lots of these contributions. Some will be bigger than others, but its honestly OK to have a protest in the UK about it.

The UK has reduced per head carbon output 40% in 20 years. We’ve taken greater action than almost any other country in the world.

Go somewhere that’s added a similar amount in that time, say China for example.
If that's even true --and who knows when it's coming from you-- then i) it's been achieved in spite of people like you standing in the way at every opportunity, no doubt if it were up to you it would be a very different picture; and ii) The average Brit is still putting out significantly more than the average Chinese person, so your anti-Chinese crusade is very misguided.

Obviously it's best for everyone if China didn't have so many people and used cleaner forms of energy, that's beyond dispute. But your continual bleating about, "all the people within those imaginary lines need to put out even less, even though they already put out less than us" is pretty f-cking tedious and inane.
bimboman
Posts: 68802
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by bimboman »

If that's even true --and who knows when it's coming from you-- then i) it's been achieved in spite of people like you standing in the way at every opportunity, no doubt if it were up to you it would be a very different picture; and ii) The average Brit is still putting out significantly more than the average Chinese person, so your anti-Chinese crusade is very misguided.

Obviously it's best for everyone if China didn't have so many people and used cleaner forms of energy, that's beyond dispute. But your continual bleating about, "all the people within those imaginary lines need to put out even less, even though they already put out less than us" is pretty f-cking tedious and inane.

Oh, it is true and your per capita claims about the UK were spectacular wrong. The average “Brit” doesn’t put out significantly more than a Chinese person He puts out less. You’re basing a judgement on completely wrong facts.

It’s not “anti Chinese “ to point out their massive investment into coal power and that they plan to carry on with that as being a major obstacle to reducing global emissions.
User avatar
6.Jones
Posts: 2972
Joined: Wed Feb 20, 2019 2:59 pm

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by 6.Jones »

Image
bimboman
Posts: 68802
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by bimboman »

It’s not contrarian to point out the UK leads the world on CO2 reductions and have passed legislation keeping them there.
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 12674
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by Mog The Almighty »

bimboman wrote:
If that's even true --and who knows when it's coming from you-- then i) it's been achieved in spite of people like you standing in the way at every opportunity, no doubt if it were up to you it would be a very different picture; and ii) The average Brit is still putting out significantly more than the average Chinese person, so your anti-Chinese crusade is very misguided.

Obviously it's best for everyone if China didn't have so many people and used cleaner forms of energy, that's beyond dispute. But your continual bleating about, "all the people within those imaginary lines need to put out even less, even though they already put out less than us" is pretty f-cking tedious and inane.

Oh, it is true and your per capita claims about the UK were spectacular wrong. The average “Brit” doesn’t put out significantly more than a Chinese person He puts out less. You’re basing a judgement on completely wrong facts.

It’s not “anti Chinese “ to point out their massive investment into coal power and that they plan to carry on with that as being a major obstacle to reducing global emissions.
You may actually be correct about that, and if so then I'm happy to stand corrected. I found a few charts that put then UK above China, albeit only slightly, but also quite a few that put them just under China. I couldn't find one for 2019. In any case the trend is encouraging and kudos to the UK for that.

However it still remains that youd be better off venting at the USA, who.put out a lot more.
User avatar
Mog The Almighty
Posts: 12674
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:33 am
Location: Stockholm

Re: Greta Thunberg

Post by Mog The Almighty »

bimboman wrote:It’s not contrarian to point out the UK leads the world on CO2 reductions and have passed legislation keeping them there.
You're actually right that what the UK has done is impressive. Recently the UK went the longest in its history without drawing any energy at all from coal power. I forget the time involved but it was quite impressive. 42 days or something like that from memory.

I'd say give yourself a pat on the back but the unfortunate truth is that this has been achieved in spite of people who think.like you, not thanks to them.
Post Reply